regional science policy and practice keynote lecture€¦ · athens, greece regional science policy...
TRANSCRIPT
The new landscape of regional inequalities in the European Union in the
aftermath of economic crisis: analysis and policy challenges for the
programming period post-2020
Professor Ioannis (Yannis) Psycharis,
Director, Regional Development Institute
Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences
Athens, Greece
Regional Science Policy and Practice Keynote Lecture
Aim and goals
Aim
• The aim of this presentation is to present the regional inequalities in Europe in the aftermath of economic crisis
• to discuss why regional inequalities is an important issue for the prospects and functioning of the European Union
• to provide a policy debate on trends and challenges that the European Union faces after the economic crisis
Approach
• Provide some basic stylized facts that could facilitate dialogue and discussion about the future prospects of European integration
• Make use of descriptive statistics and thematic cartography in order to visualize the finding and make the evidence more accessible
• Emphasize on the policy formulation, policy outcomes and future prospects of cohesion policy
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects2
Regional inequalities
Why regional inequalities is an important issue for Europe?
Regional inequalities is a key feature of European integration even form the Treaty of Rome.
• ‘Inequality’ has been placed at the forefront of policy debates (OECD 2015, In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All, Picketty 2014)
• Regional inequality determines the development potential and the well being for different areas and large number of people across Europe
• The geography of inequality is related with the geography of discontent, unrest, populism and political attitudes towards integration of the EU (A. Rodriguez-Pose 2017; Ph. McCann 2017)
• Regional inequalities call for different policy responses. The identification and the underlying dynamics of inequality call for a differentiated policy interventions in order to correspond to specific problems and needs
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects3
Methodological issues
Regional inequalities in the EU have been studied from different angles and for different sub-sets of geographical areas.
• In this research EU has been divided into three groups of countries: North-West, South and Central-East EU countries
• This analysis proceeds by analyzing / goes deeper into separate countries and regions
• Specific analysis has been placed at the role of Capital Regions and Metropolitan areas
• Analysis employs predominately descriptive statistics and thematic cartography and is based on EU statistical data that have been retrieved from official Eurostat statistical data sources
• Changes in the definition of NUTS II regions in some countries call for cautious interpretations and comparisons
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 4
I. Tracing the changes in the development map of the EU
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 5
Tracing development paths in the EU-28 by group of countries
The long term level of economic development of the EU during the period 2000-2017 has increased. Economic crisis in 2008 had been a catalyst for the development map of Europe for both the disruption in the growth rate but also for the differentiated impacts to different groups of countries.
• Northern EU countries enjoyed per capita level of economic development well above the EU average throughout the period 2000-2017. However, after the great recession in the year 2008 the level of economic development of Northern countries reveal slow growth/recovery rates
• Southern EU countries before the economic crisis revealed level of economic development lower to the North EU ones but above EU average. However, after the years 2009 the level of economic development of the Southern EU countries has declined steadily and dropped below the EU average.
• Central East EU countries have the lowest among the three groups level of economic development. However, they show steady and rapid increase throughout the period 2000-2017. Economic crisis has a short term impact on this trend. The level of economic development still remains below the EU average.
Summing up, it could be stated that new geographies of development have been emerged in the EU in recent years. Inequalities between North and South have been increased. A North-South divide is reemerging. East EU countries as a group have followed a steadily converging with the EU development path. This new geography of development is still progressing.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 6
Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in purchasing power standards (PPS) EU-28, Groups, 2000-2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 7
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
GD
P p
c as
% o
f EU
28
GD
P p
c in
PP
S
EU-28
North
South
Central-East
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Gaussian kernel estimation
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 8
Decriptives 2000 2008 2017
mean 19.252 25.295 28.740
sd 9.334 11.670 14.084
median 19.100 24.200 26.500
min 3.600 7.000 9.300
max 106.600 147.500 188.000
range 103.000 140.500 178.700
skew 3,10 4,40 5,50
kurtosis 26,15 41,52 56,55
Se 556,80 696,20 840,20
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Going into more detail by analyzing group of countries and regions: 2000, 2008, 2017
Boxplots and Kernel density estimations provide additional insights to the development map of the EU.
• For the East EU countries, the majority of regions remains below the EU average. However, ‘long tails’ in the upper part chart reveal that there are some outliers cities which show level of economic development well above the EU average. These are the metropolitan areas and the capital regions.
• North EU countries have also ‘long tails’ in the upper part of the distribution. These are the Metropolitan regions.
• Southern EU countries have lost ground in terms of the level of economic development. However, regional inequalities are smaller while there is absence in the dominance of Metropolitan areas comparing to the other two group of regions: the North and the South
• Looking the box plots with separate countries it is striking the decrease in the level of economic development for the Southern EU countries and also some important losses in Northern EU countries such as in France and in the UK
Summing up, it could be stated that the development of East EU countries has been accomplished with further polarization of economic geography between the capital regions and the rest regions of each country. Metropolitan regions are also outliers in the North. However, this observation doesn’t apply to the same extent for the Southern regions.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 9
Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS Groups, (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017Gaussian kernel estimation
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 10
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS Groups (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Boxplots
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 11
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Distribution of Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS Groups & countries= (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000, 2008, 2017 Boxplots
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 12
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Mapping regional development in EU for the years 2000, 2008, 2017
These trends can be better portrait by thematic mapping. There are some important observations:
• The number of regions above the EU average is shrinking over time. Polarization in levels of economic development.
• The geography of development is restricted/shrunk in the corridor that crosses the EU from Sweden to Northern Italy.
• Increase in metropolitan development in the East and enhancement of development gaps between the Metropolitan regions and the rest of the country.
• French and UK constitute case studies that attract our attention. ‘Île-de-France’ is an outlier in the France’s development map. The same applies to ‘Inner London’ for the UK. See also Scotland among regions with level of economic development above the EU average.
• The synthetic map which constitutes a transition matrix summarizes which regions have lost ground between 2000 and 2017 and which regions have been upgraded. Specific attention is required to the regions of France and the UK.
Summing up, it could be stated that the development map of EU has been most polarized. Even regions belonging to countries of the EU core have downgraded substantially with France and UK being representative examples.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 13
Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPSNUTS 2 regions(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 14
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS (NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2008
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 15
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPSNUTS 2 regions(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 16
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Mapping of transition in Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPS(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000-2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 17
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Analysis of changes in the development map of the EU
Transition probability matrixes show the possibility a region to move to another “state”- class. Analysis has applied for the regions belonging to different groups of EU countries.
• The regions in the EU North with high probability to move are those in the lowest class or those in the middle classes groups of the climax.
• The regions in the EU South that have the highest possibility to move (downgraded) belong to the upper class. Regions belonging to the 25-50 class are difficult to move.
• The regions in the EU East that have the highest possibility to move are those in the lowest class or in the middle position in the climax.
Summing up, the probability is differentiated according to the group of country. The differentiated results question the fitness and the effectiveness of policies.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 18
Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000-2017, EU-28
2017>
20000-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+
0-25 71,88% 28,13% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
25-50 0,00% 93,89% 6,11% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
50-75 0,00% 0,94% 94,36% 4,70% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
75-90 0,00% 0,00% 5,56% 89,92% 4,52% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
90-100 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 12,18% 81,30% 6,35% 0,17% 0,00% 0,00%
100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,21% 80,52% 8,28% 0,00% 0,00%
110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 10,84% 84,73% 4,43% 0,00%
125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 7,00% 89,39% 3,61%
150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,31% 94,69%
Half-life 42,1
S 86,7%
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 19
Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000-2017, North
2017>
20000-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+
0-25 87,50% 12,50% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
25-50 0,00% 100,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
50-75 0,00% 0,78% 92,19% 7,03% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
75-90 0,00% 0,00% 2,66% 92,01% 5,33% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
90-100 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% 81,14% 6,36% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,32% 80,71% 7,97% 0,00% 0,00%
110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,43% 84,62% 3,96% 0,00%
125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,26% 90,79% 3,95%
150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 4,38% 95,63%
Half-life 637,1 periods
S 89,4%
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 20
Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000-2017, South
2017>
20000-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+
0-25
25-50 100,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
50-75 1,23% 94,17% 4,60% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
75-90 0,00% 10,27% 87,45% 2,28% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
90-100 0,00% 0,00% 12,15% 84,11% 3,74% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 11,63% 81,40% 6,98% 0,00% 0,00%
110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 9,79% 86,71% 3,50% 0,00%
125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 13,76% 85,32% 0,92%
150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 38,46% 61,54%
Half-life 94,4
S 85,1%
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 21
Transition probability matrix in GDP per inhabitant in PPS(NUTS 2 regions, EU-28 = 100), 2000-2017, Central-East
2017>
20000-25 25-50 50-75 75-90 90-100 100-110 110-125 125-150 150+
0-25 66,67% 33,33% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
25-50 0,00% 93,67% 6,33% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
50-75 0,00% 0,76% 95,21% 4,03% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
75-90 0,00% 0,00% 16,22% 75,68% 8,11% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00%
90-100 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,00% 70,00% 20,00% 5,00% 0,00% 0,00%
100-110 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 5,88% 70,59% 23,53% 0,00% 0,00%
110-125 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 63,64% 36,36% 0,00%
125-150 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 90,00% 10,00%
150+ 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 100,00%
Half-life 76,2
S 80,6%
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 22
II. Analyzing the evolution of regional inequalities in the EU
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 23
Regional inequalities in the EU-28
We present two measures of regional inequality:
• Theil index
• Coefficient of Variation (CV) weighted by population
Regional inequalities in the EU were decreasing until 2008, however, after the economic crisis regional inequalities are widening .
Regional inequalities are:
• The highest but decreasing in East EU countries
• High and increasing in Northern countries
• Relatively lower and after a period of decreasing started increasing again
• Higher within states than between states / Metropolitan regions is one of the reasons for this observation
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 24
Theil index for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS, EU member states and NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 25
0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Theil/countries
T [between countries]
T [between regions-within countries]
T [between regions-EU28]
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Theil index for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS by group Groups, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 26
0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Theil/groups
T [between groups]
T [between regions-within countries]
T [between regions-EU28]
T [between regions-within north]
T [between regions-within south]
T [between regions-within central-east]
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS Groups, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 27
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EU28
North
South
Central-East
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS, weighted by population Groups, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2017
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 28
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
EU28
North
South
Central-East
Coefficient of Variation (CV) for the GDP per inhabitant in PPS, weighted by populationEU member states, NUTS 2 regions, 2000-2015
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 29
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7
Croatia [2]
Denmark [5]
Austria [9]
Netherlands [12]
Slovenia [2]
Portugal [7]
Finland [5]
Germany [38]
Sweden [8]
Spain [19]
Poland [16]
Italy [21]
Greece [13]
Belgium [11]
France [27]
Ireland [2]
Hungary [7]
Bulgaria [6]
Czech Republic [8]
Romania [8]
Slovakia [4]
United Kingdom [39]
EU28 [269]2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp)
Taking a step further by analyzing the influence of Metropolitan areas
We then procced by tracing the development path by group of regions taking into consideration the Metropolitan level. This analysis provides some additional insights to the development map of the EU.
• Metropolitan regions enjoy higher level of economic development for the EU and the three groups of EU countries.
• Furthermore, in Northern EU countries the distance between metropolitan regions and the rest of the country is increasing. The same applies to the Central and East EU countries.
• Metropolitan regions enjoy higher level of economic development than the rest of the country in the EU south. However, they keep relatively stable distance across time.
• Capital city regions and metropolitan regions contribute to more than 60% on average to the GDP in the EU countries.
Summing up, it could be stated that new geographies of development have been emerged within different groups of countries. In the Northern and Eastern EU countries inequalities between metropolitan regions and the rest of the country is increasing. Metropolises are the drivers of new type of regional inequality in wealth and prosperity. This trend is also progressing rapidly especially to the East EU countries.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 30
Gross domestic product (GDP) per inhabitant in PPSGroups/typologies, 2000-2015
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 31
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
East - Other metropolitalregion
East - Capital cityMetropolital region
East - Total
North-west - Othermetropolital region
North-west - Capital cityMetropolital region
North-west - Total
South - Othermetropolital region
South - Capital cityMetropolital region
South - Total
EU - 28
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Slovakia
Slovenia
Croatia
Italy
Latvia
Finland
Belgium
Portugal
Romania
Greece
Lithuania
Austria
Netherlands
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Estonia
Sweden
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Spain
Germany
Denmark
France
Ireland
Malta
Cyprus
Luxembourg
EU282015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Share of metropolitan regions in gross domestic product (GDP) in PPSEU member states 2000-2015, (%) , Capital City region | Other Metropolitan Regions
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 32
Source: Eurostat (met_10r_3gdp)
Case study: The evolution of regional development in the CEE countries
This part of the presentation has made an attempt to present the level and the evolution of regional development in the CEE countries of the EU during the period 2000-2016, focusing on the role of metropolitan regions. The analysis has provided some interesting results.
1) the CEE countries are lagging behind in terms of economic development compared with the EU average, however, there is important trend towards convergence.
2) metropolitan regions seem to be the outliers in the level of economic development since they enjoy levels of economic development well above the EU average.
These trends reflect the changing landscape of regional inequality in the development map of the European Union. These changes call for the differentiation of regional policies. The CEE countries require well-tailored policies in order to achieved balanced development between regions, urban areas and the other regions in each country.
Summing up it could be stated that this new form of inequality requires different methods of analysis and adjustments to policy.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 33
Shares (%) of Metro regions in national GDP CEE EU member states, 2016
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 34
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)
GDP per capita at regional and metropolitan levelCEE EU member states, NUTS 2 regions, 2016
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 35
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)
GDP at Metro-Regions as share (%) of national GDPCE EU member states, NUTS 2 regions, 2016
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 36
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)
III. Geographical aspects of sectoral specialization, manufacturing activity and trade balance within the EU
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 37
Geographical aspects of manufacturing and trade in the EU-28 context
• Industry decreased steadily until 2010, a reversal trend has been observed during the last decade
• East EU countries show higher levels of Manufacturing activity outside the Metropolitan areas
• Trade balance reflects the productivity gaps between the North, South and East EU countries
• There are some important differences regarding the trade patterns within EU and the rest of the World
• Sectoral specialization has impacted on trade
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 38
Gross value added (GVA) in Manufacturing sector as % of the total GVA Groups/typologies, 2000-2015
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 39
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
East - Other metropolitalregion
East - Capital cityMetropolital region
East - Total
North-west - Othermetropolital region
North-west - Capital cityMetropolital region
North-west - Total
South - Other metropolitalregion
South - Capital cityMetropolital region
South - Total
EU - 28
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_2gdp) and (met_10r_3gdp)
Gross value added (GVA) in Manufacturing sector as % of the total GVA EU members states, 2000-2015
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 40
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Malta
Greece
United Kingdom
France
Netherlands
Latvia
Portugal
Spain
Denmark
Belgium
Croatia
Sweden
Bulgaria
Italy
Estonia
Finland
Austria
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
Romania
Germany
Slovenia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Ireland
EU282015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Source: Eurostat (nama_10r_3gva)
Merchandise trade balance (% of GDP) in the Eurozone EU members states, 2015
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 41
-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Ireland
Netherlands
Germany
Belgium
Slovenia
Italy
Slovak Republic
Finland
Austria
Spain
France
Lithuania
Portugal
Estonia
Latvia
Luxembourg
Greece
Cyprus
Malta
Trade Balance (+/-) as % percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) EU member states, 2002-2016
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 42
-30%-25%-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Ireland
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Germany
Hungary
Slovenia
Belgium
Denmark
Italy
Slovakia
Poland
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Spain
France
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Romania
Portugal
Latvia
Estonia
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Greece
Croatia
Cyprus
Malta
EU282016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
-30%-25%-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
IE
CZ
NL
DE
HU
SI
BE
DK
IT
SK
PL
SE
FI
AT
ES
FR
BG
LT
RO
PT
LV
EE
UK
LU
EL
HR
CY
MT
EU28
-30%-25%-20%-15%-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
IE
CZ
NL
DE
HU
SI
BE
DK
IT
SK
PL
SE
FI
AT
ES
FR
BG
LT
RO
PT
LV
EE
UK
LU
EL
HR
CY
MT
EU28
EU28 Extra-EU28 World
Source: Eurostat (teiet210)
IV. EU Budget, cohesion policy and redistribution
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 43
Cohesion policy and redistribution
Financing EU Budget
• Net contributors in the EU Budget are the more developed countries in the EU North
• Ret recipients are the less well off regions and countries in the EU lagging behind regions and territories
• The cost of financing the EU Budget is relatively small for the net contributors
• The gains of the recipient countries are very high
• Trade is favoring the more completive and more well off countries in the EU
• The cost of redistribution can be counterbalanced by the gains through trade
• While net contribution in the EU Budget reflects the financial cost for European integration, the surplus trade balance reflects the economic gains from the European integration. This creates benefits for all and constitutes the dynamic balance between loses and gains in the process of European integration.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 44
Net contributions as % percentage of GNI 2000-2015 EU member states
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 45
-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Hungary
Latvia
Estonia
Greece
Poland
Romania
Portugal
Slovakia
Malta
Czech Rep.
Slovenia
Ireland
Spain
Croatia
Cyprus
Finland
UK
Italy
Austria
France
Denmark
Luxembourg
Belgium
Sweden
Germany
Netherlands
Source:https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/
Example of Evolution of public investment spending in Greece 2000-2012
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 46
Περιφερειακές ανισότητες, περιφερειακή ανάπτυξη
και μητροπολιτικές περιφέρειες
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
PI pc, euro/inh.PI, billion euros
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
PI pc, 2008=100
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
% of GDP
V. Conclusions and policy proposals
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 47
Conclusions: a synopsis (1)
After the economic crisis a new development map in the EU has been emerged.
Inequalities between North and South have been increased. • A new dualism in the level of economic development between North and South has
been emerged.
Central East EU countries are converging to the EU average. • However, this achievement has been accomplished/achieved with the cost of
increasing internal inequalities especially between metropolitan areas and the rest regions of these counties.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects48
Conclusions: a synopsis (2)
High gaps between the metropolitan regions and the rest of the regions has been observed in many Northern countries. France and the UK constitute representatives examples of this trend.
The most prosperous regions of the EU have been reduced to a much narrower development corridor from Sweden to Northern Italy.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 49
Discussion and policy considerations (1)
Different types of regions require different sets of policies.
Specific attention is required for Metropolitan areas.
Trade patterns show high intensity of flows within EU.
Financing cohesion policy should take into consideration budgetary costs vis-a-sis gains from trade and higher integration.
Golden Rule for balanced budget should be re-examined in favour of fiscal space for public investment.
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects50
Discussion and policy considerations (2)
Support investments in human capital, green projects, digital solutions and improvements in the quality of government.
Implementation of development policies to promote employment and reducing inequality.
More active involvement of development banks, support/utilize European Invest Bank projects
New programming period should promote more targeted policies with a good balance between place specific and people specific priorities.
The new programming period should target on higher consolidation and implementation of development policies, with more fiscal space for public investment. The consensus over a new development plan for Europe could be an option for stabilization and higher integration
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects 51
Thank you for your attention!
9/6/2019 Y Psycharis |“Regional inequalities in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects52